An ongoing effort in New York state to encourage schools to adopt the “science of reading” is seeing some early success, according to a new survey, with the majority of educators reporting that their schools have adopted evidence-based instructional materials and methods.
But many of these changes have been piecemeal, with educators saying they’re mixing and matching new approaches with the curricula and teaching strategies they’ve always used.
The results, from a survey of 765 New York state educators distributed by the Science of Reading Center at the State University of New York at New Paltz, underscore the layered challenges involved in getting large-scale instructional change off the ground.
“For the [science of reading] to be effective and meet the needs of all students, it requires more than replacing an existing non-aligned curriculum with an evidence-based reading program,” the authors write.
Whether the state’s initiative succeeds or fails will come down to “careful implementation,” they write, “not just adding programs, assessments, and one-off, haphazard professional learning.”
New York enters the ‘science of reading’ movement
In January 2024, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, unveiled her “Back to Basics” literacy plan, mandating that schools certify they are using curricula, teaching methods, and teacher professional development that align to “evidence-based and scientifically based” best practices in reading instruction. Soon after, the state department of education released a series of literacy briefs providing guidance.
New York state’s 2025 budget allocated $10 million for teacher training and $2 million to expand reading teaching microcredential programs at SUNY and CUNY schools.
“Governor Hochul is committed to enhancing and expanding evidence-based reading instruction across the state,” said a spokesperson for the governor in an email, in response to the survey findings. “The Governor’s Back to Basics initiative sets our teachers and students up for success, and we will continue to collaborate closely with our partners in education to implement these new curriculum standards.”
As more than half of states have passed legislation over the past five years to incentivize or mandate schools to adopt evidence-based approaches to literacy instruction, the Empire State was a latecomer to the movement.
New York has a long history of local control, where schools—not the state—decide what materials to use. The new requirements, which call for districts to align their approaches with evidence-based practices, are less prescriptive than those in some other states.
Mississippi, for example, whose reading legislation has served as a model for other states in the nation, requires schools to screen students for reading difficulties, provide individual reading plans with evidence-based interventions for identified students, and retain 3rd graders who don’t meet a cut score on the state test. The state also provides school-based reading coaches.
For evidence-based literacy practices to take root, all aspects of instruction—from curriculum to professional development to assessment—need to support them, said Rose Else-Mitchell, the director of SUNY New Paltz’s Science of Reading Center. But that doesn’t necessarily require states to dictate every step schools take, she said.
“We don’t always see systemic change as something that has to be top down.”
Most educators support the science of reading, but mix teaching methods
The Center surveyed teachers, specialists, administrators, librarians, and a small percentage of parents. Most of the respondents, about two-thirds, were classroom teachers. About half of all survey-takers also completed the SUNY New Paltz microcredential in science of reading fundamentals.
More than 90% said they are in favor of implementing practices aligned with the science of reading. (Else-Mitchell suggested there may be some bias in these results: “People who answer surveys are more enthusiastic than those who don’t,” she said.)
But when asked about specific changes to materials and methods, the results were more mixed.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents said their schools or districts had either adopted or were piloting new curricula. But exactly what schools were using varied widely.
About a third of respondents reported using a comprehensive core curriculum, such as HMH’s Into Reading, Amplify’s Core Knowledge Language Arts, or Savvas’ myView Literacy. But another quarter said they had only implemented a supplement that focused on the foundational building blocks of literacy, connecting letters and sounds—programs including Wilson’s Fundations or the University of Florida Literacy Institute’s Foundations (UFLI). Fifteen percent said they were using programs not aligned to the science of reading.
The survey also asked whether respondents used a science-of-reading-aligned approach. Twenty-eight percent said it was their primary approach, while 57 percent said it was one of several approaches used.
It’s possible that some educators interpreted this question in different ways, Else-Mitchell said.
There’s a common misperception that the “science of reading” only refers to phonics and foundational skills instruction, rather than relying on reading research to guide all areas of literacy instruction. But, she said, “I do think there is much greater awareness now that comprehension, vocabulary, and knowledge-building are part of that science.”
Why educators revert to ‘tried and true approaches’
This blending of new and old methods that survey respondents reported felt familiar to Susan Neuman, a professor of childhood and literacy education at New York University.
Her team at NYU is working with two geographic districts in New York City as they implement the city’s reading initiative, NYC Reads.
New York City’s program, which requires elementary schools to choose from one of three approved curricula, launched the year before the state’s “Back to Basics” plan. But it shares the goal of bringing classroom instruction in line with the evidence base on effective reading teaching.
In practice, though, change has been uneven, said Neuman.
“The mandated curricula [don’t] fully address the needs of differentiated instruction,” she said. “And of course, that is what we knew when we came up with this mandate—that it cannot be appropriate for all students in all classrooms. So teachers have to adapt that instruction, and what they’re tending to do is go back to their old tried and true approaches.”
There’s “a good deal of nostalgia” for how things used to be, Neuman added.
In the schools she works with, teachers are finding that some students who struggle with decoding and reading fluency have trouble understanding the text selections included in the Wit & Wisdom reading program. As a result, she said, teachers are offering those students the leveled books that they used to use—texts written to meet students at a just-right reading level.
Research has shown that restricting struggling readers to text written at lower levels can start a vicious cycle, slowing their growth and widening the gaps between higher- and lower-scoring students.
But when teachers feel that they don’t have the resources they need to make more complex text digestible for all students, they’ll turn to other options, Neuman said. In one of the districts she works with, Neuman and her team have developed instructional routines that teachers can use to provide more entry points to the curriculum for students at different ability levels.
If teachers don’t get support to adapt their instruction within an evidence-based framework, she said, “they’re going outside” the curriculum.
